Murphy v Callinan [2018] IESC 59 (30 November 2018)

Murphy v Callinan [2018] IESC 59 (30 November 2018)

The plaintiff failed to establish any negligence or unfairness in the processing of his personal data or any loss resulting from such processing, as required under s.7 of the Data Protection Act 1988; the claim for injurious falsehood failed for lack of evidence of publication; the existence of statutory remedies does not bar a claim for damages, but proof of loss is still required; the appeal is dismissed as no prima facie case was made out.

Citation
[2018] IESC 59
Parties
Appellant: Peter Murphy; Respondent: Gary Callinan; Respondent: Julie Carroll; Respondent: ARB Underwriting Limited; Respondent: The Commissioner of An Garda Síochána; Respondent: Ireland; Respondent: The Attorney General
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
30 November 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court Dismissal at Non Suit Stage
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Negligence, Breach of Statutory Duty, Data Accuracy, Injurious Falsehood, Defamation, Res Judicata, Abuse of Process, Duty of Care, Publication Requirement, Spent Convictions
Tort Law Data Protection Law Defamation Law Constitutional Law Negligence Breach of Statutory Duty Data Accuracy Injurious Falsehood +6 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Murphy

Appellant

Gary Callinan

Respondent

Julie Carroll

Respondent

ARB Underwriting Limited

Respondent

The Commissioner of An Garda Síochána

Respondent

Ireland

Respondent

The Attorney General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court Dismissal at Non Suit Stage

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff established negligence or breach of duty in data processing by the defendants
  2. 2 Whether the claim was barred by res judicata or abuse of process
  3. 3 Whether damages for breach of data protection rights require proof of loss under the 1988 Act

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff failed to establish any negligence or unfairness in the processing of his personal data or any loss resulting from such processing, as required under s.7 of the Data Protection Act 1988; the claim for injurious falsehood failed for lack of evidence of publication; the existence of statutory remedies does not bar a claim for damages, but proof of loss is still required; the appeal is dismissed as no prima facie case was made out.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Application for non-suit by defendants granted
  • No damages awarded to plaintiff